What do you see happening to your healthcare costs in the next few years

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A lot less than it does with our current system.

Can you point out a working example of the system you propose?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

are you and Spence drinking together today?

I thought you and Detbuch were, you each keep replying to posts to the other one. I was cutting you some slack assuming you were daydrinking.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Can you point out a working example of the system you propose?

I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care.

Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Because the rapid gentrification pushes people down with no where to go. It's not the only reason but it's a big part.

Why on earth are you worried about the homeless in Seattle? Seattle is a very Progressive city. No way that homelessness will exist there. The supposedly homeless in Seattle should be asked "How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why on earth are you worried about the homeless in Seattle? Seattle is a very Progressive city. No way that homelessness will exist there. The supposedly homeless in Seattle should be asked "How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?"

The progressive liberal utopia of Connecticut, is also an epicenter of income inequality, where the zillionaires of Westport and Greenwich live next-door to unimaginable poverty in Bridgeport.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The progressive liberal utopia of Connecticut, is also an epicenter of income inequality, where the zillionaires of Westport and Greenwich live next-door to unimaginable poverty in Bridgeport.

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care.

Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

I doubt that income inequality is better in those states. We weren't talking about average income, or teacher income, we were talking about income inequality. That is a huge issue in CT, because it's a byproduct of hard-core liberalism.

High school grads teaching school? Where is that?

One conservative state that people are moving to in huge numbers is NC. They pay their teachers poorly, which is one reason why taxes are low. But they still get people to apply for teaching jobs, and if you do 5 minutes of research before deciding what town to live in, you can get great public schools.

Paul, here in CT we pay teachers very well (despite what they claim), and we give them insane benefits (despite what they claim). There is an upside to that, sure, as talent often goes where the money is. There is also a downside (in addition to the cost). You can run the risk of drawing people to the profession who are only attracted by the pay, benefits, and time off. That is not a profession where you want people who are only casually interested in the underlying work. You need people who are answering a call to teach.

When I was a student in public schools in CT, teacher pay was barely above poverty. Yet we got great, certified teachers, not high school grads. Then I went to a Catholic high school, where teachers were paid even less. Again, I had amazing teachers. It's a total fallacy to claim that unless we bankrupt ourselves to pay them well, that no one will teach except for illiterate criminals. It's demonstrably false.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I doubt that income inequality is better in those states. We weren't talking about average income, or teacher income, we were talking about income inequality. That is a huge issue in CT, because it's a byproduct of hard-core liberalism.

When I was a student in public schools in CT, teacher pay was barely above poverty. Yet we got great, certified teachers, not high school grads. Then I went to a Catholic high school, where teachers were paid even less. Again, I had amazing teachers. It's a total fallacy to claim that unless we bankrupt ourselves to pay them well, that no one will teach except for illiterate criminals. It's demonstrably false.

Hard-core liberalism made CT a suburb of NYC? How did the people of Fairfield County make other people poor?
Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Sure is. If you look at many stats, the evil liberal states rank far better than the conserv. utopian states. Things like quality of life, education, health care access, public safety, crime, life expectancy, environmental health, housing rates, etc. Those come at a cost - higher taxes.

Would the poor fare better w/a lower tax burden - I don't think so as the stats indicate there are less "ills" in the higher tax states.

Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes.

I heard that in Utah (which has a severe teacher shortage) they hired teachers w/a college degree. The person who said that also said you could teach w/o a degree if you have 5 years of relevant experience - which I don't think is a bad idea.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

One conservative state that people are moving to in huge numbers is NC. They pay their teachers poorly, which is one reason why taxes are low. But they still get people to apply for teaching jobs, and if you do 5 minutes of research before deciding what town to live in, you can get great public schools.

And their d... uppity teachers are walking out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...211234489.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/no...est/index.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

Actually, we were foolish to depart from that "system" and switch to federal government control. As we "progressed" through the switch, prices skyrocketed.

Advances in medicine occurred before the switch, and would have continued probably even faster and better without the switch. And the competition between states would have created varieties from which to choose. And it would have helped to preserve our constitutional "system" rather than helping to destroy it. And individual freedom of choice as well as freedom in general would have been sustained.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hard-core liberalism made CT a suburb of NYC? How did the people of Fairfield County make other people poor?
Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

No, you misinterpreted my post about. I was not saying liberalism caused the fabulously wealthy enclaves of Fairfield County, that was great luck for the state of CT. I'm saying liberalism is directly responsible for the other side of income inequality, the extreme poverty, and for the loss of much of the middle class. Highly progressive areas tend to attract large numbers of wealthy people who can afford the taxes that accompany liberalism, and also large numbers of people who want to live off liberal welfare. The middle class fall through the cracks and go elsewhere. That's why you have income inequality, you have people at both extremes, not a lot of folks in the middle.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

Not sure what made you think I don't think they should be paid (I taught public school for a short time in CT). They should be paid an amount that is reasonable to fund via reasonable taxes.

What I said, and it's demonstrably true, is that lower compensation doesn't always mean a lower quality of education.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

The problem with that, is that liberals feel that the state knows better than these people, how to best spend their money.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Also, the cost of living is lower ("more affordable") in those lower taxed states, so lower salaries can be sustained more easily.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And their d... uppity teachers are walking out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...211234489.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/no...est/index.html

Fine. let them walk out, and I bet for every teacher that quits, the town gets 10 applications from fresh college grads eager to land their first job. Do you have any data to suggest that they can't fill open teaching positions in the Carolinas? I'd bet the farm that's not true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sure is. If you look at many stats, the evil liberal states rank far better than the conserv. utopian states. Things like quality of life, education, health care access, public safety, crime, life expectancy, environmental health, housing rates, etc. Those come at a cost - higher taxes.

Would the poor fare better w/a lower tax burden - I don't think so as the stats indicate there are less "ills" in the higher tax states.

Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes.

I heard that in Utah (which has a severe teacher shortage) they hired teachers w/a college degree. The person who said that also said you could teach w/o a degree if you have 5 years of relevant experience - which I don't think is a bad idea.

Paul, how do you explain the fact that CT is always among the nation's leaders in population exodus? CT offers an amazing quality of life if you can afford it. Many people are deciding that it's not worth the cost, that the Carolinas offer a better bang for the buck.

And that's based on today's taxes, which we know aren't anywhere near enough to fund the debt that's coming soon. So even though most of the debt is off the balance sheet in unfunded IOUs. we're still losing productive citizens. What's going to happen when these debts come due, which is around the corner?

"Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes. "

There are upper middle class areas in NC and SC where I can enjoy a comparable quality of life, for far lower cost. You refer to them as "low income states" to disparage the entire state. I'm not saying I want CT to turn into all of NC or SC. But we can learn lessons from the parts of NC and SC that are working so well, like the suburbs of Charlotte, which is the banking capital of the US. They are building $450k houses as fast as they can be put up, and it isn't meth heads who are buying them. The population exodus has been a disaster for tax revenue.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fine. let them walk out, and I bet for every teacher that quits, the town gets 10 applications from fresh college grads eager to land their first job.

That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.

Glad to see you're not making assumptions or anything. First, the citizens of places like the Carolinas have freely chosen (unlike the masochists in CT) to live with low taxes, and to pay public servants accordingly.

Second, the teaching profession has plenty of grizzled, burnt-out veterans, and the students might benefit by replacing them with eager rookies bursting with energy and enthusiasm and new creative ideas.

Third - "no experienced mentors" - show me the data that says that there aren't any experienced teachers left.

Paying teachers poverty wages isn't ideal. Nor is what we have here in CT, where we have promised them benefits that can never, ever be delivered.

[PaulS]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/well...nb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/well...nb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

Any fat bastards that think its the states fault they are fat, raise there hands.

Nope, that one is on me and my love of Craft Beer and BBQ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/well...nb7Kz#image=18

Obesity rates - just saw this.

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

Bash the Carolinas all you want, and there are plenty of legitimate things to bash them with. I don't like NASCAR or hunting either. The fact is, huge numbers of upper middle class New Englanders are moving there, and most don't come back. And the reason is, it turns out that you can have all the good things about our quality of life, without having to overpay for them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Any fat bastards that think its the states fault they are fat, raise there hands.

Nope, that one is on me and my love of Craft Beer and BBQ

But that's the very core of liberalism - nothing is your fault, and only the state can save you from yourself, and from the predatory practices of the craft breweries and BBQ joints. It's stupefying that anyone would think that obesity rates are tied to politics. Think how much you have to reject the notion of free will, to blame obesity on the state.

If all behavior is determined by politics, what does it say to you, Paul, that the crappiest and most dangerous cities in the country, are overwhelmingly liberal cities? Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Hartford, Bridgeport? Is all that drug use, fatherlessness, and crime, the result of liberalism? Or does that connection only exist when bad things happen in conservative places?

There are plenty of places in NC where I would never want to live (there are also plenty of places in CT where I would not want to live). But there are some places in NC that offer a high quality of life, with a low cost of living. Please name me one single place in CT that has a high quality of life, with low low taxes. You can't. Because we haven't been able to pull that off, but NC has. Ask the real estate agents and real estate developers.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1142743]And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1142756]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

"Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. "

You are desperately grasping at straws. Anyone who would suggest that politics determines obesity for a significant percentage of the citizenry, is a maniac.

"The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA."

Unions? UNIONS keep people skinny?

OK, I had my laugh for the day, I think we are done now.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1142756]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And that's because of politics, not culture? So if healthy people move from CT to NC, they can expect to become obese?

Come on Paul. That doesn't come close to making any sense.

QUOTE]

Republicans policies tend to entrench poverty, and obesity and poverty often go together. The Republican-dominated states where obesity rates are the highest are states where there is more poverty, weak unions, people who lack health insurance and a strong opposition to the ACA. Also, opposition to food stamps, school meals and spending $ on education (to teach students about nutrition - don't eat cheetos vs fruit)

There is more to it then poverty, lack of health insurance and inadequate access to healthy food and obesity can’t be blamed only on the conserv. policies (plenty of overweight people in liberal cities) but stats show obesity is the conserv. states and those conserv. policies make the problem worse.


Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation.

"Any ranking of obesity has conserv. states at the top and liberal states at the bottom. That is not solely blaming states only noting it is a part of the problem. As an actuary you have to see a correlation."

As an actuary, if I ever dared to say out loud that state politics plays any meaningful role in people's weight, they'd kick me out of the association and never let me work again, and they'd be right to do so.

Again, if what you say is true (and it isn't, bit let's pretend), I'd bet that liberal states have more abortions, more drug use, more violent crime, poverty, fatherlessness, infidelity, divorce. If conservatism causes obesity, do you concede that liberalism causes the problems I listed? Can't have it both ways.

[PaulS]

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.


Violence
http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpol...igher-crime-r/

Divorce
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25032268

Teen Pregnancies
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...een_moms_.html

Pornography
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...re-pornography

Best states for woman.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-w...r-women/10728/

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Some good reading here:

The red states all have significantly lower life expectancy than blue states, owing to much higher incidences of diabetes, obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Red states have much higher rates of uninsured citizens, death, food stamp recipients and Medicaid recipients
The 10 poorest states in the nation are all red states and 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
The median income is much lower in red states than in blue states.
State funding per student is much lower in in red states.
The top 10 states that practice corporal punishment are red states.
The percent of the population with college degrees is lower in red states than in blue states.
Red states have a higher percentage of population abusing drugs.
The rate of traffic related fatalities is higher in red states.
The incidence of alcohol-related driving fatalities is higher in red states.
Of the 12 states with the highest murder rates, 10 are red states.
Of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine are red states.
Of the top 15 states with the highest per capita execution rate, 13 are red states.
The incarceration rate is much higher in red states.
Property crimes rates are higher in red states than in blue states.
Divorce rates are significantly higher in red states.
Abstinence-only sex education is more prevalent in red states, which accounts for the fact that of the states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates, nine of the top ten are red states.
There are significantly more white supremacists hate groups in red states than in blue states.

That is surely because all those rich liberals threw the fat, drunk, abusive, illiterate deplorables out of their blue states.